Martin Sixsmith

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wish to repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in another place. The Statement is as follows:

"With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the circumstances surrounding the resignation of Mr Martin Sixsmith from the post of Director of Communications in my department.

"On 14th February the Daily Express and the Daily Mirror reported that my special adviser Jo Moore had sought to schedule an announcement on the day of the funeral of Princess Margaret.

"Both papers reported that an e-mail had been sent from Martin Sixsmith to Jo Moore in the following terms: 'Dear Jo, there is no way I will allow this Department to make any substantive announcements next Friday. Princess Margaret is being buried on that day. I will absolutely not allow anything else to be.'

"In fact no such e-mail was sent from Martin Sixsmith to Jo Moore. Nevertheless the Daily Mirror reported yesterday Martin Sixsmith apparently told the reporter concerned on 14th February 'every aspect of your story is correct. I'm happy with it.'

"On the morning of 14th February the Prime Minister's official spokesman briefed the Lobby on the allegations contained in the Express and the Mirror using an explanation that had been agreed with Martin Sixsmith.

"Subsequently that lunchtime and into the afternoon it seems that one or more officials from my department began to brief the press that the line used by the Prime Minister's official spokesman was incorrect. At least one official appears to have spoken on this basis saying he was ringing on behalf of Martin Sixsmith.

"So what we had was a concerted attempt by a very small number of civil servants in the press office to undermine the department. I should stress that only a very small number were involved and their actions are being investigated. The vast majority work in a very good, committed and dedicated manner.

"On the morning of Friday 15th February I met with my Permanent Secretary, Sir Richard Mottram, to discuss the situation. Sir Richard told me that in his view the positions of both Martin Sixsmith and Jo Moore had become untenable. He felt that the best thing for the department would be if they both left their posts because relationships within the department and with its Ministers had broken down. He recommended that we should seek their resignations. I agreed with Sir Richard's recommendation. I said that I would talk to Jo Moore and Sir Richard said he would talk to Martin Sixsmith.

"We were clear that the department could not carry on with the communications department in the state that it was. As I made clear on the Dimbleby programme at the weekend, I believed both should go.

"Jo Moore agreed to resign. Mr Sixsmith agreed to resign. I announced the resignations. The details of the events that day are set out by Sir Richard Mottram in his statement of yesterday.

"Since then, there have been a number of meetings and discussions involving Mr Sixsmith in an attempt to resolve the detailed terms of his departure. I have not been directly involved in those negotiations. I have not met or spoken to Mr Sixsmith since his resignation and the detail of these discussions has been conducted by Sir Richard Mottram.

"I made it clear to Sir Richard Mottram, however, that in my view, and this view is strengthened by the events of recent days, Mr Sixsmith should not be given a job elsewhere in government. Ultimately, I was not in a position to block any arrangement about his future employment elsewhere in the Civil Service, and I accepted that discussions between Sir Richard Mottram and Mr Sixsmith would continue. Those discussions focused on him either getting another job in government or being compensated according to the terms of his contract.

"It was because in the end this decision about his future, beyond leaving my department, was not for me to take that I sought to make clear on the Dimbleby programme that I was not personally involved in the discussions with Mr Sixsmith on an alternative Civil Service job. But if my answers on the programme gave the impression that I did not put forward a view, or make clear my views to others inside and outside the department, that is obviously something I regret and I welcome this opportunity in the House to clarify matters.

"It is true that I was not personally involved in the negotiations. It is also true, however, that I believed Mr Sixsmith should not be given another job. I did not see the Dimbleby programme as the suitable place for detailed discussion about a personnel issue. Indeed, it is with some regret that I stand here now, making clear what my views of Mr Sixsmith are.

"I should emphasise that this is not an argument between elected politicians and civil servants. As the Prime Minister has repeatedly made clear the dedication, professionalism and political impartiality of the British Civil Service is one of the country's greatest assets. I wholly endorse that view.

"My department, like every other, is staffed by dedicated and hardworking people who impartially serve governments of any colour. What is at issue here is whether one or two unnamed officials, acting quite contrary to the traditions and ethos of the Civil Service, can be allowed to disrupt and undermine the vital work of a Department of State. I do not believe they can.

"I will not allow this issue to distract myself, my ministerial team or the department from delivering on the challenging agenda ahead of us. Long after this issue is forgotten people will judge us by what really matters. I will not shy away from taking the tough decisions—whether in relation to Railtrack, reforming local government finance or making sure none of our regions is left behind.

"What matters to the people of our country is seeing improvements to our transport system; once again valuing local government; providing decent homes for our people; regeneration of our communities. That is what we are committed to do as a Government. And that is what I am delivering and will continue to deliver as Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions".

My Lords, throughout the country passengers are waiting for trains on the railways and the Tube, planes are diverted because of the inadequacy of the half-privatised air traffic control system, and motorists are stuck in ever-longer traffic jams. That is the daily reality of the Government's total failure with transport after five years in office.

1344
I must of course thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, for repeating the Statement. Is he not ashamed and embarrassed to come to the House with a Statement about the office politics of the department that is supposed to be sorting on that mess? So much for an integrated transport policy. The Secretary of State cannot even run an integrated private office.

To restore morale in the department, will the Minister express full confidence in Sir Richard Mottram and in the career civil servants in the department? Will he accept publicly that it was a gross error not to have dismissed Jo Moore after her appalling behaviour on 11th September? In view of the comments about Mr. Sixsmith, can the Minister assure the House that Ms Moore will never again be appointed to any public post in this Government?

I wish to ask the noble and learned Lord six questions. Who took the decision to remove Mr Sixsmith from his post? Who decided, at what time, and by what means, that the announcement of the resignations would be made? Can the noble and learned Lord tell the House what Mr Sixsmith did wrong to be sacked from the Department of Transport?

On Sunday, the Secretary of State said:
I had absolutely nothing to do with and no discussions about Mr Sixsmith's departure. Personnel matters are dealt with not by me but by the permanent secretary".
How does the Minister square the apparent contradiction between this claim and the Permanent Secretary's statement yesterday when he said:
It was clear to me that this situation could not continue and that Jo Moore and Martin Sixsmith should both leave their posts, because relationships within the department and with its Ministers had broken down. I discussed this with Mr Byers. He agreed with my proposal"?
How does the Minister square that?

Why did the Secretary of State say on 15th February that Mr Sixsmith had resigned when it is quite clear that he had not resigned? Was he misled by the Permanent Secretary? How did he get it wrong? Mr Martin Sixsmith said again today that he did not resign. If he is not telling the truth, where is the letter of resignation? Are the Government and the noble and learned Lord saying that Mr Sixsmith is now not telling the truth?

In the Statement, the Secretary of State says that Mr Sixsmith should not be given a job elsewhere in government. The Secretary of State has sought to end a civil servant's career. He denied it originally but has now admitted it. Is not this gross interference in the management of the Civil Service and, indeed, all the codes that go with it?

Too often the Government seem to believe that if the cause is just or a Minister needs a boost, any spin will do. They cannot conceive that it may be time to apologise or that they may be wrong. The reality is that there is now a shadow over the reputation and the functioning of the department that cannot be removed until the Secretary of State shows the sense of honour that he has so far not shown and steps down. We have been led too often into his world of half truths and
1345
conflicting statements. Remember Rover and BMW; Railtrack and the chairman's meeting; the rail regulator; Mr Bob Kiley, the London Transport commissioner; and now Mr Sixsmith and Sir Richard Mottram. Is it not astonishing how many people the Secretary of State meets who seem to misrepresent afterwards what he says to them? He is obsessed with spin and presentation. Indeed, two years ago he was reprimanded by the Trade and Industry Select Committee for this very thing.

The Secretary of State has become incapable any longer of effective management or of carrying the loyalty of his department. He is now part of the problem; he cannot be the solution. If the Secretary of State, Stephen Byers, stays, who will invest in London Underground? Who will finance rail investment? Who will lend more money to NATS? Would he not be more respected if he stepped aside and gave the country what it needs—a new Minister to work with the Civil Service and to deliver results on our roads and railways?

My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, has raised a number of detailed questions about the minutiae of this affair. In some ways, this may well play into the Government's hands because they would like to ring-fence this issue in the minutiae of who said what to whom. I should like to go further and probe the Minister about the Government's views on a wider philosophy.

In the Statement, the Secretary of State says that,
people will judge us by what really matters".
In another place, he has been well supported by honourable Members, who have spoken about transport, roads and so on and have said that those are the things That really matter. However, I put it to the Minister that—especially in this House—as well as those things really mattering, so does the principle of an independent Civil Service, selected and promoted on merit. So, too, do the standards of public administration. I should like to use this opportunity to probe the Government about how they are approaching those responsibilities—the ones that really matter.

Before I do so, I should like to question a point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor. It is extraordinary that in his Statement the Secretary of State confirmed that he gave the view that Mr Sixsmith was not suitable for transfer to another department. That surely is outside the code of conduct for Ministers and is not proper behaviour. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can confirm that Ministers are not expected to interfere in personnel matters in that direct way.

The Secretary of State also said that, as well as Mr Sixsmith, there were at work in the department,
unnamed officials, acting quite contrary to the traditions and ethos of the Civil Service".
These are extremely serious charges. Can the Minister say whether the specific civil servants are under inquiry at this moment and whether they will be named and
1346
disciplined? Or will this charge be left hanging in the air as another part of the smokescreen surrounding the Government's explanation?

Is the Minister aware that outside the Downing Street bunker—if he is, he must be the only one everyone now believes that the department needs a fresh start under a fresh Minister? The Government can send Mr Byers wherever they like, but that department needs a new start.

Does the Minister agree that this is not only a matter of a single Minister and an individual civil servant? The Labour Party had 18 years to think about it, and has had five years to practise it. Yet it has got its relationship with the career Civil Service into a terrible mess. There is something about this present mess that goes to the very heart of government—for instance. the way in which the Prime Minister handles his Cabinet and his special advisers in No. 10; the way in which he lets loose the Downing Street press machine and the lack of guidance to the press offices in individual departments. There is a need for the Government to clearly state, and underpin with action. the NorthcoteTrevelyan principles which have stood us in good stead for 150 years.

Do the Government believe that there is a genuine conflict between the purely information role of press officers and their wider political propaganda role? What does the Minister think of Mr Charlie Whelan's suggestion that all press officer posts should be political appointments so that the role they play within government is clear? Will the Government introduce a Civil Service Bill? If not, what is the reason for delay?

Does the Minister agree that in these past four or five years, by the way they have allowed their special advisers to act the Government have missed a wonderful opportunity to reform our system of administration to enable us to bring in outside experience—including outside political experience—to the betterment of government?

Does he agree that there is also a responsibility on the senior civil servants—the so-called mandarins—to protect the Northcote—Trevelyan principles? They should be able to say, "No, Minister" as well as. "Yes, Minister". If a Minister and a government go beyond those principles, they should have the courage to resign.

In some ways it is not appropriate that a transport Minister should be answering these questions because this is not about transport policy but about governance and probity in government. We are lucky in this House because the Minister responding is well known not only as a departmental Minister but as one of the Prime Minister's close confidants, a man to whom he listens. Will he tell the Prime Minister that this is not a matter to be dealt with by bluster and braggadocio, but by looking at the crisis of confidence that really and genuinely exists in our Civil Service at the moment and acting on it? If the Prime Minister
1347
does not, he will deserve the contempt, and ultimately the punishment, of the electorate for failing in one of his most fundamental duties.

My Lords, I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, that what people are most concerned about in this country are the problems of transport and that we should be concentrating on seeking to resolve them. That is what my right honourable friend in another place is seeking to do. He asked me to express full confidence in Sir Richard Mottram and I do so without hesitation. He asked me to express full confidence in the Civil Service in my department and I do so without hesitation. Speaking personally, as regards the particular areas with which I am concerned in my department, which are housing, planning regeneration and other matters, the quality of service I have been provided with from the Civil Service has been second to none and the relationship between Ministers and the Civil Service has also been second to none. I believe that we should get this matter into perspective.

The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, asked six questions, which I shall try to answer. I did not quite get down the sixth because he veered between question and abuse. It was quite difficult to determine what was the question and what was the abuse. The first question was: who took the decision that Martin Sixsmith should resign? Perhaps I may read from the personal statement made by Sir Richard Mottram yesterday. He said,
On Friday, February 15, it was clear to me that this situation could not continue and that Jo Moore and Martin Sixsmith should both leave their posts, because relationships within the department and with its ministers had broken down. I discussed this with Mr Byers. He agreed with my proposal. We agreed he would talk to Jo Moore and I would talk to Mr Sixsmith".
He then describes his discussion with Mr Sixsmith and the statement continues:
"He"—
that is Mr Sixsmith—
agreed that he was willing to resign on three conditions: that Jo Moore should also resign; that he and I agreed the terms in which his resignation would be presented in a manner which did not blame him; and that he needed to understand the financial terms under which he would leave, although he said these were unlikely to be a difficulty for him.
Sir Richard then describes Mr Sixsmith going to the hospital appointment and said,
I agreed that he would take up his hospital appointment, which he told me he could do and return to the department by 3.30 pm. At this stage"—
and these are the words of Sir Richard Mottram—
I informed the Secretary of State and the Cabinet Secretary that Mr Sixsmith had agreed to resign".
My right honourable friend in the other place agreed with the contents of the statement in his Statement in the other place. Sir Richard continued:
Because he failed to return to the department for some two hours after the time we had agreed, the detailed terms of his resignation had not been finalised nor put in writing by the time it was announced together with that of Jo Moore—earlier than had been planned because of a leak— at 4.45 p.m. on the Friday. The
1348
terms of the Secretary of State's announcement were discussed with me. They did not attribute any blame to Mr Sixsmith and were consistent with the discussion I had had with Mr Sixsmith on his second condition".
Those are the circumstances of Mr Sixsmith's resignation, as set out by Sir Richard Mottram. The statement sets out clearly how the decision was taken.

The second question from the noble Viscount was: who took the decision on the timing when the resignation was announced? The announcement was made by the Secretary of State at 4.45 p.m., as Sir Richard Mottram's statement makes clear. That was discussed with Sir Richard. The third question was: as it has been said that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has nothing to do with personnel, why did he get involved in the decision about Martin Sixsmith going? Again, I refer to the statement made by Sir Richard Mottram. It was he who came to the conclusion that,
the situation could not continue".
He discussed it with Mr Byers and,
He agreed with my proposal".
That is how the Minister became involved, and it was made absolutely clear at all stages by Mr Byers that that was his involvement.

The fourth question was: was the Secretary of State misled by the Permanent Secretary? What the Secretary of State announced at 4.45 p.m. was that Mr Sixsmith and Ms Moore had resigned. Sir Richard Mottram says in his statement,
At this stage"—
which is 3.30 in the afternoon of Friday—
I informed the Secretary of State and the Cabinet Secretary that Mr Sixsmith had agreed to resign".
It was on that basis that the Secretary of State made his Statement at 4.45 p.m.

The fifth question was: where is the letter of resignation? As Sir Richard Mottram's statement makes clear, there is no letter of resignation because there were still three issues to be resolved. As I say, I could not grasp the sixth question because of the mixture of abuse and question. If the noble Viscount would like to repeat it, I shall be more than happy to try to answer it.

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has offered me the opportunity to repeat the question and I am grateful. Mr Sixsmith has repeatedly said, and said today, that he did not resign. Is the Minister saying that Mr Sixsmith is not telling the truth?

My Lords, I believe that that is a slightly disingenuous question, if I may say so with the greatest respect.

Sir Richard Mottram's statement makes it absolutely clear that there was a discussion about resignation. Noble Lords must draw their own conclusions as lawyers as regards this matter. The detail has been set out of all the facts; namely—and I quote,
He agreed that he was willing to resign on three conditions".1349
Then Sir Richard sets them out. Those are the facts.

As regards the noble Lord, Lord McNally, he, perhaps with some sense, moves away from the minutiae of the issue and asks whether it does not indicate a malaise. The malaise that he seeks to identify is the relationship between Ministers and the special advisers on the one hand, and the Civil Service on the other. I most emphatically reject the suggestion that it is indicative of any sort of generalised malaise. Of course, it is plain from these events that there has been a problem in the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions in relation to the press office, but that is not a problem that spreads across to Ministers and their special advisers and their relationship with civil servants.

My own personal experience has been that relationships between civil servants and Ministers have been good. In the vast majority of cases, special advisers also get on well with civil servants and that can be demonstrated by my own department where the two remaining special advisers have a good relationship with civil servants.

The noble Lord asked whether all press officers should be politicised, as Charlie Whelan suggests. Most emphatically not. The vast majority of government press officers should continue to do their jobs in the best traditions of the British Civil Service.

My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord make it clear that Martin Sixsmith did not resign and has not resigned? It is clear from the statement from Sir Richard Mottram that Mr Sixsmith said that he was willing to resign on three conditions, which were to be discussed on his return from hospital. They have never been discussed or clarified and therefore there is no evidence of resignation. Can the Minister confirm that that is so?

My Lords, noble Lords can continue pressing me as much as they like on this matter. The facts are set out very clearly. If it is the noble Lord's conclusion that Mr Sixsmith has not resigned, then so be it.

My Lords, will my noble and learned friend confirm that it is his view that the Secretary of State for Transport will be judged, not on this transient issue which the Opposition are using as a sledgehammer, but on the important issues of whether the ideas on transport which he substantially and effectively follows, and which largely he inherited from the Opposition, will be dealt with? Can my noble and learned friend say whether the letter of resignation, which the Opposition continually refer to, is as illusory as the case proposed today?

My Lords, I agree entirely with the first part of the question. My right honourable friend in another place will be judged on his success or failure in relation to transport and other issues which are his responsibility and not, as my noble
1350
friend said, on these transient issues which the noble Viscount described as "office politics". As I have made absolutely clear, my right honourable friend said that there was no letter of resignation.

My Lords, is not this extraordinary intervention merely the latest phase of a deplorable situation that we have seen developing in a major government department? Is it not high time that the position of special advisers was reviewed, with civil servants being restored to the position that they have enjoyed, to the general admiration of the public, of giving the decisive advice to Ministers, as has been the case since the Trevellyn-Northcote Report, and also of ensuring that information is given impartially?

My Lords, from my experience, the Civil Service has continued fearlessly, as always, throughout the time of this Government to give impartial advice in the best interests of the state, whether or not Ministers want to hear it. In the vast majority of cases, I do not believe that special advisers hinder or damage that process; indeed, far from it, they make it easier. As many civil servants recognise, Ministers are frequently unavailable and it is useful to have special advisers who can reflect their views to civil servants. It is not a bad development: it is one that began under previous governments, as they would acknowledge. Where the arrangement works well, as it does in the vast majority of cases, it is beneficial both to the Minister and to the Civil Service.

My Lords, in a spirit of, I hope, non-partisanship, I ask the Minister to look at the broader context of today's announcement. Whatever we may say in this House, I believe he will agree that the British public is fed up to the back teeth with the manner in which much of the press relations of the present Government—and, indeed. of the previous government—have been conducted. There is a real breakdown of trust between the public, the Government and Whitehall that is damaging politics and democracy.

I fully accept that the press are involved in this state of affairs, as well as the Government, but can the Minister say whether there are any means of having less partisanship and manipulativeness on the part of government press departments, and more frankness and fairness? Unless we manage to introduce a new way to deal with press relations, I believe that the whole of politics will continue seriously to suffer.

My Lords, it is obvious to all of us that the standing in which politicians are held by the public generally, and right across parties, is not high. We must ask ourselves what form of conversation should politicians have with the electorate in order to seek to increase the standing of politicians. I believe that the standing of politicians with the nation is most important. For example, in my job as Minister responsible for regeneration, I notice that, in some cases, there are now more people voting for members of the boards for New Deal for
1351
Communities than there are in local authority elections. What does that say about the standing of politicians? Perhaps it indicates that in some cases it is those on the ground who might affect people's lives who are regarded as more important than elected politicians.

My Lords, does not the noble and learned Lord find it rather strange that in his Statement the Secretary of State seems to be trying to create the impression that there was no e-mail at all? Is it not agreed that there was an e-mail, albeit to the Secretary of State rather than to Jo Moore, about the subject of whether it was right to make an announcement on the day of Princess Margaret's funeral? Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can tell us why the Secretary of State appears to be dissimulating in this way in an effort to disguise the fact that there was such an e-mail? When Mr Byers announced on 15th February that Mr Sixsmith had resigned, do the Government now accept that no resignation by Mr Sixsmith had been finalised? Will they further accept that there is no earthly reason why Mr Sixsmith should have made a firm commitment to resign at that stage when there was no firm agreement on the terms of his resignation and the amount of compensation to which he is undoubtedly entitled?

My Lords, there was an e-mail from Mr Martin Sixsmith to the Secretary of State concerning the events of Friday, and the announcement. In his Statement, the Secretary of State referred to a purported e-mail—

No, my Lords. The Secretary of State set out in detail the words of a purported e-mail published by the Daily Mirror and the Daily Express. They were not the terms of any email sent from Mr Sixsmith to the Secretary of State: it was in different terms. The Statement notes that such an e-mail was sent from Martin Sixsmith to Jo Moore. That is a reference to the e-mail wrongly quoted by the Daily Mirror and the Daily Express. I have set out the circumstances of what happened between Mr Sixsmith and Sir Richard Mottram. Noble Lords must draw their own conclusions in that respect.

My Lords, is not the underlying injustice in this whole affair the fact that a decent, honest and honourable man, Mr Byers, who some of us know very well—someone who is capable and who knows how to take real decisions in his department, as happened once in my former constituency when an important decision was quickly taken by him—has been totally undermined by perhaps two (certainly by one) as yet unidentified officials in his own department whose identity we shall need to know in the end? Further, he has been undermined by unreliable tittle-tattle and a frenzy of irresponsible activity in the national media.

My Lords, it is obviously not professional for someone in the department of Mr Byers to express unfavourable views about him to the newspapers. However, Mr Byers does not seek to defend himself. He simply seeks to say, "Give me the opportunity to get on with the job that I have been given. That is what the British people want me to do".

Lord Butler of Brockwell

My Lords, perhaps I may begin by warmly welcoming the reference in the Statement, and in the Minister's response, to the dedication of the Civil Service in helping the elected Government to carry out their aims. I agree with the noble and learned Lord that the relationship between Ministers, civil servants and special advisers is generally very productive. But when it breaks down, as it clearly has on this occasion—and, indeed, has done sometimes in the past—embarrassment and failure invariably follow.

I return to two questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that I do not believe the Minister has answered. First, allegations were made in the Statement about other civil servants. Those allegations should not have been made unless, as a matter of fair process, there has been an inquiry that has established those involved and through which the civil servants have had a chance to reply. Can the Minister tell us whether such an inquiry has taken place and been completed? Secondly, can the Minister answer the point about the preparation of the Government's promised Civil Service Bill, which is awaited?

My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right to point out that I failed to answer the question put by the noble Lord, Lord McNally. I apologise to the noble Lord, and to the House, for that omission. I quote from the Statement. When talking about a very small number of civil servants in the press office seeking to undermine the department, the Secretary of State said:
I should stress that only a very small number were involved and their actions are being investigated".
So an investigation is in progress, but not yet completed.

I turn to the question regarding a Civil Service Act. As the Government have made clear—indeed, I believe that this was made clear when the noble Lord was the Cabinet Secretary—there will be legislation to cover the Civil Service. We have made a commitment in that respect and the legislation will be introduced as soon as legislative time allows. As the noble Lord will know, that is a matter of judging priorities at the time of the Queen's Speech.

My Lords, I return to the points made by my noble friends Lord Boardman and Lord Waddington. I rely entirely on the Statement by the Secretary of State and on what the noble and learned Lord has said. There was an agreement to resign, subject to three conditions. Two of those conditions were ones mentioned by my noble friend Lord Waddington. There was no agreement on whether Mr Sixsmith would get another job or whether he
1353
would receive compensation. Those are two vital points. It is perfectly understandable that the agreement was not complete when Mr Sixsmith left for the hospital. It is, therefore, not surprising that he was astonished when he heard on the radio after leaving hospital the news of his resignation. Could the explanation simply have been that the Secretary of State was in a hurry?

My Lords, the explanation as given by Sir Richard Mottram in his statement again I apologise for repeating myself —is that,
At this stage"—
that is, at 3.30,
I informed the Secretary of State and the Cabinet Secretary that Mr Sixsmith had agreed to resign".
That is what Sir Richard told Sir Richard Wilson, the Cabinet Secretary, and Mr Stephen Byers, and on that basis the Statement was made. As to whether or not there is in law a resignation, I have set out the facts and noble Lords must draw their own conclusions.

My Lords, will the Minister pursue more urgently the possibility of the legislation relating to the Civil Service mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and by my noble friend Lord Butler? Is not the truth that the Government have acted to take administrative decisions in the area of the hitherto unwritten constitution? It would seem that we are getting into some difficulties in the absence of any agreed framework of law as opposed to previously agreed unwritten conventions. Would not the Government be wise to bring this matter forward rather more urgently than they have apparently considered hitherto?

My Lords, as I have indicated, we have committed ourselves to such a Bill and we shall bring it forward as soon as legislative time permits.

Perhaps I may take up the noble Lord's point and refer back to a comment by the noble Lord, Lord Butler. By and large, the relationships between special advisers and civil servants work well. There is no legislation in the world that will make relations good. One should be realistic about that.

My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord deal with the other question put by my noble friend Lord McNally, which he has so far not answered; namely, what was the propriety of the Secretary of State expressing the opinion that Mr Sixsmith should not be employed in any other government department, and how was that compatible with the ministerial code of conduct?

My Lords, my right honourable friend made it clear in his Statement:
Ultimately, I was not in a position to block any arrangement about his future employment elsewhere in the Civil Service".1354
That is the important point. He makes it absolutely clear in his Statement that he is not in a position to do anything to block any arrangement about Mr Sixsmith's future employment. As to expressing views, I do not think that it is improper for a Minister to express views.

My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Waddington, I believe that there has been a gratuitous omission from the Statement by the Secretary of State. He said that no e-mail was received by Jo Moore. That is true. But there was an e-mail, and the terms of e-mail related to the inadvisability of news being released on the day of Princess Margaret's funeral. Therefore, they were very similar in nature. Does the Minister agree that, not only was it sensitive of Martin Sixsmith, but it was entirely responsible, in the light of what happened after the events of I 11th September, to give such a warning?

Secondly, on television on Sunday the Secretary of State said unequivocally:
I had absolutely nothing to do with, and no discussions about, Mr Sixsmith's departure".
In the light of what the Minister has said today, and what the Secretary of State has said, and in the light of the statement by Sir Richard Mottram, it is the case that discussions did take place about Mr Sixsmith's departure; therefore, there has been an untruth spoken by somebody.

My Lords, first, as to the e-mail, I hope I made it clear in answering the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, that there was indeed an e-mail—not in the terms set out in the Statement by my right honourable friend. I also made it clear that it was sent by Martin Sixsmith to the Secretary of State. I did not say, "but it was copied to Jo Moore as well". The question that the noble Baroness is asking is: do you agree that the actual, real e-mail was an appropriate e-mail to send? I have absolutely no complaint about the real e-mail that was sent. Perhaps I may make it clear that what my right honourable friend is saying in his Statement is that the e-mail that was not sent was the e-mail purported to be quoted by the Daily Mirror and the Daily Express.

My Lords, the Minister is not giving any explanation as to why the Secretary of State is concealing in his Statement that there was an e-mail
1355
in almost identical terms which was quite properly sent by Mr Sixsmith, and very appropriately sent by him to the Secretary of State.

My Lords, I do not think for one moment that the Secretary of State is seeking to conceal the existence of that other e-mail, which is well known. As to the second question, I think have already answered it.

My Lords, perhaps I may return to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord McNally relating to the accusation against a small group of civil servants undermining and disrupting the work of the department. I have been around these premises for 32 years. Never before have I heard such an accusation made by any Minister against any group of civil servants or any individual civil servant. It is a very serious accusation and an allegation against individuals who do not yet have any opportunity to reply for themselves. I understand from the Minister's remarks that an inquiry will take place. When it is complete, will those civil servants be named outside the protection of parliamentary privilege so that they will have some redress?

Does the Minister agree that, if what the Secretary of State for Transport said is true, it constitutes in reality a conspiracy—I use the word advisedly—by a group of employees in a department of state against that department and against one of Her Majesty's Ministers? That is a very serious matter. I hope that it will be treated as such by the Government.

My Lords, the Statement said:
one or more officials from my department began to brief the press that the line used by the Prime Minister's official spokesman was incorrect … So what we had was a concerted attempt by a very small number of civil servants in the Press Office to undermine the department. I should stress that only a very small number were involved and their actions are being investigated".
I am not in a position—nor do I think it remotely appropriate—to give any kind of assurance as to what the results of the investigation will be. Whether it is appropriate to publish the results will depend on the results.

My Lords, we have taken the 20 minutes allowed. However, this is an important
1356
matter and I have the sense that the House would like to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Lawson. That must then be the last speaker. We are expending the time.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, and I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, for coming in as the 12th man in place of him.

Is the Minister aware that I entirely agree with the general issues of grave concern voiced by the noble Lord, Lord McNally? No Civil Service Act, however desirable, will make up for the determination of Ministers to maintain standards of integrity and acceptance of the ethos of public service as Ministers in previous governments have done, and which, I am afraid, are slipping today.

The Statement is about Mr Sixsmith. May I ask a simple question? If Mr Sixsmith did nothing wrong, why was he asked to resign?

No, my Lords, I am not sheltering behind it. Sir Richard Mottram is a civil servant respected on all sides of the House. He said:
It was clear to me that the situation could not continue and that Jo Moore and Martin Sixsmith should both leave their posts, because relationships within the department and with its Ministers had broken down".
It is not good enough for the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, simply to sweep aside what Sir Richard Mottram has said, because it is the ethos of men such as Sir Richard Mottram that we all wish to uphold.